Search Results

1. LCRO 97/2019 DH v MB (29 June 2020) [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...property she (a) “thought it would be safer for those funds to be paid into a bank account in [Ms DH’s] name rather than any bank account in [her] name”, and (b) for that purpose transferred the purchase money to Ms DH’s bank account. [101] Lastly, Mrs RS declared that Ms DH, having made no financial contribution herself, “[was] effectively holding [the 71.1 per cent] share upon trust” for Mrs RS. For that reason, Mrs RS stated Ms DH had in [Ms DH’s] will bequeathed the...

2. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a judge’s ruling. [101] We know of no common law jurisdiction which accepts that a judge’s adverse rulings are disqualifying per se. The problem is rather whether an aggrieved litigant should be permitted to seek recusal on the basis of rulings that are ei...

3. ZA v YB LCRO 23/2014 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a judge’s ruling. [101] We know of no common law jurisdiction which accepts that a judge’s adverse rulings are disqualifying per se. The problem is rather whether an aggrieved litigant should be permitted to seek recusal on the basis of rulings that are ei...

4. ZA v YB LCRO 135/2014 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a judge’s ruling. [101] We know of no common law jurisdiction which accepts that a judge’s adverse rulings are disqualifying per se. The problem is rather whether an aggrieved litigant should be permitted to seek recusal on the basis of rulings that are eit...

5. OX v XX Standards Committee LCRO 180/2015 (4 October 2016) [pdf, 456 KB]

   ...OX, it is more likely than not that the deficiencies in Mr OX’s conduct of the aborted jury trial 23 collectively, fell below the standard of professionalism that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as being acceptable. [101] It is particularly important where an accused’s liberty is at risk that minimum standards are met and preferably exceeded. Only lawyers have the status to appear as an advocate for any other person before a New Zealand court. That work...

6. Coronial Services Annual Report 2015-2016 [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...group Year Asian Māori Pacific Other Number Rate* Number Rate* Number Rate* Number Rate* 2007/2008 21 5.93 87 15.39 24 9.05 408 13.26 2008/2009 10 2.82 95 16.81 26 9.81 400 13.00 2009/2010 22 6.21 105 18.58 31 11.69 383 12.45 2010/2011 19 5.36 101 17.87 22 8.30 416 13.52 2011/2012 19 5.36 132 23.34 31 11.69 365 11.24 2012/2013 28 7.90 105 18.58 24 9.05 384 12.48 2013/2014 22 4.67 108 18.06 26 8.81 373 12.96 2014/2015 16 3.40 130 21.74 27 9.15 391 13.58 2015/2016 39 8.28 129 21.57 24...

7. LCRO 239/2016 RY v P AN and T AN (25 September 2018) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...numerous instances where a clear, timely response or record of advice provided, instructions received and steps taken by the lawyer at a particular time assists to overcome any subsequent doubt about earlier events. Orders (1) Compensation [101] Section 156(1)(d) of the Act provides that a person who seeks compensation must have “suffered loss by reason of any act or omission of [the lawyer]”. Compensation may not exceed $25,000.37 (a) Loss, costs claimed [102] Mr and Mrs...

8. LCRO 239/2017 AB v CD (3 July 2019) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...$15,000”. [100] Also, and importantly concerning this issue, Ms AB wanted a provision requiring both parties to “produce invoices (or other suitable source documentation) to substantiate all claims under the [settlement] agreement”. [101] On Monday 14 November 2016, Mr CD responded to the vendors’ counsel (by email at 8.39 am). Mr CD stated that having obtained Ms AB’s instructions “over the weekend”, there was “agreement in principle”. He stated that this was...

9. LCRO 188/2018 KB v WQ and LT (22 January 2021) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...[Country A] and [Country B] based investors had instructed an [City 2]-based law firm (DEF) to “look for ways to recover their option money”.11 [100] He reports that after “nearly 5 years, there was no recovery success by [DEF]”.12 [101] Further, Mr KB notes that “three [nationality] attempted to claim back the money from Q Law in the High Court but the judge threw out their claim”.13 [102] Mr KB provided no citations for any decisions arising from this litigation, h...

10. OWRUG & HortNZ - EiC - I McIndoe – Geography/Hydrology (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 257 KB]

    ...Guidelines are already able to be used (and were used) for that purpose. For completeness, I do recommend that the Guidelines, which were based on data available up until 2015, be updated to incorporate seasons up until the 2020/21 irrigation season. 101. I recognise that the introduction of minimum flows (or residual flows) on water resources could, and probably will, make water supplies less reliable for some growers. If that is the case, growers will need to adapt their use of...